Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes meaningfully beyond annotations by disclosing the 100-item cap, that per-item semantics match the single resolve endpoint, and that partial success is possible—nonexistent IDs are skipped and reported in a notFoundIds field. It stops short of covering what happens to already-resolved items (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or whether resolution is reversible despite the queue-items-unresolve sibling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scale, then the endpoint equivalence, then the edge-case behavior. Nothing is wasted or deferred to the end.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to call it safely: batch limit, per-item behavior, and partial-failure reporting. Missing pieces—permission requirements and the effect on already-resolved items—are the only notable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The nested schema documents id, itemIds, and projectId in detail, so the description only needs to add limits—and it does restate the 100-item cap. However, the description adds nothing about itemIds format or the projectId key/name and project-key resolution rules, even though the top-level 'request' wrapper is itself undescribed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (resolve queue items) and adds scope the name alone doesn't convey: bulk, up to 100 items in one request. It doesn't explicitly name the single-item sibling queue-items-resolve, but the 'in one request' phrasing implies the batch distinction clearly enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for bulk resolution and that queue-items-resolve exists for single items, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other or what preconditions apply. No exclusions or alternatives are spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.